| Meager Rolmug |
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.
What the heck does this mean?? "Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item,"
The "additional bonuses" seems to indicate something other than pricing a +1 special ability=+1 bonus. If it doesn't why have the word additional in the sentence?
| Gisher |
^ beat me to it.
EDIT: ...and his post disappeared...
Anyways, you could not add flat cost enchantments. The pricing structure of the Amulet isn't exactly like a weapon, so if you wanted a flat cost enchantment you'd need to work with your GM on a price.
Sorry, Nefreet. I must have deleted it seconds before you posted. I could have sworn there was a FAQ about this and when I couldn't find one I started wondering if the rules had changed.
| Gisher |
Gisher wrote:It means that if you make an AoMF with a +1 Enhancement Bonus and the Holy Special Ability (which has a +2 Equivalent Bonus) then it costs the same as an AoMF with a +3 Enhancement Bonus.So what does it cost if you just put holy in it, since that is possible with the amulet?
Holy is a +2 Equivalent so a Holy AoMF would have the cost of a +2 AoMF.
| Meager Rolmug |
When you separate any sentence from a paragraph it loses context. Left in there, it makes sense as is.
I separated it because that was what my question was about, not because i read it by itself. It does not make any more sense in the paragraph or alone. If it works the way you say, there is not a reason to put the word additional in the sentence. In fact the sentence doesn't need to there at all, just adds confusion IMO. That doesn't mean your interpretation is wrong..i assumed it was that way til i read that sentence.
| Meager Rolmug |
Meager Rolmug wrote:Holy is a +2 Equivalent so a Holy AoMF would have the cost of a +2 AoMF.Gisher wrote:It means that if you make an AoMF with a +1 Enhancement Bonus and the Holy Special Ability (which has a +2 Equivalent Bonus) then it costs the same as an AoMF with a +3 Enhancement Bonus.So what does it cost if you just put holy in it, since that is possible with the amulet?
Cool, my build just became worth while.
Taja the Barbarian
|
Gisher wrote:Cool, my build just became worth while.Meager Rolmug wrote:Holy is a +2 Equivalent so a Holy AoMF would have the cost of a +2 AoMF.Gisher wrote:It means that if you make an AoMF with a +1 Enhancement Bonus and the Holy Special Ability (which has a +2 Equivalent Bonus) then it costs the same as an AoMF with a +3 Enhancement Bonus.So what does it cost if you just put holy in it, since that is possible with the amulet?
Keep in mind that a Holy Amulet of Mighty Fists will not pierce DR x/Magic, x/Cold Iron, x/Silver, or x/Adamantine, nor do I think it will stack with Magic Fang or its relatives (not 100% certain on this last part, but I'm fairly certain you have to choose the spell or the amulet).